Swedish government collapse

[Adar]

Source
Sweden's left-of-centre Prime Minister Stefan Lofven says he will call snap elections after his minority government lost a budget vote less than three months after coming to power.

He said a new poll would take place on 22 March.

The government failed to push its budget through parliament, when the far-right Sweden Democrats sided with the opposition.
The Sweden Democrats emerged as a power broker after September's elections.
The party now holds 49 seats and, voting with the centre-right opposition on Wednesday, defeated the government's budget by a margin of 182 to 153.
At a hastily called news conference after the vote, Mr Lofven told reporters that new elections would enable voters to "make a choice in the face of this new political landscape".
Under the constitution he cannot officially call a national poll until 29 December.
Accusing the centre-right parties of failing to engage constructively over the budget, Mr Lofven complained that the opposition had allowed the far right to dictate terms.
"We have formed a government, we have a budget, and we will go into the elections with that," he said, standing alongside a spokesman from his coalition partner, the Greens.

And I am not even angry. What happened is that we got two strong blocks that act more like football fans than as politicians with an ideology. Between them we also have the Swedish Democrats who are social conservative and do not like immigrants. Voicing criticism against immigration is extremely sensitive among the established parties and is just a career killer as declaring yourself an atheist in an American presidential election.

The Sweden Democrats have pretty declared that they will vote against any budget not aiming to harmonise Swedish immigration with immigration in the rest of Europe (for an update on the situation look at this picture (source).


Right now it doesn't even look like any of the two blocks even want to be elected into power right now. When declaring his intent of holding of declaring a new election Löfvén (chairman of the Social Democrats, Swedens largest party) also declared that he would go to the election based on his current budget. Which mean that he would create a Social Democrat-Environmentalist government but also ensure that the budget is supported by the Leftist party.

This mean that he is pretty much is declaring a major " you" as the Sweden Democrats are heavily reliant on traditionally Social Democrat voters who prioritize economic development and jobs ahead of immigrants and environmentally friendly policies. Between 40-45 % of all Swedes want to reduce immigration (the rest are undecided or want to increase it) and a Social Democratic party aligning themselves with the leftist and environmentalist parties will alienate even more voters go to the Sweden Democrats. Meanwhile the Moderates (major righwing party) are mimicking this behaviour on the right side of the political spectrum (ie same policies except that they like cars and private healthcare) which mean that regardless of who "win" the election there will be massive issues in creating a viable government.

[Basil II the B.S]

Are SD even social conservatives anyways? I don't recall reading they oppose same-sex unions or the likes.

[trance]

They do oppose same-sex marriage, but IIRC not unions.

This had been on the horizon for the last two months, Löfven and his environmentalist party cohorts (in Sweden having common ground with socialist elements) have been driving a very pronounced leftist policy, despite being a minority government with minority support.

[hellheaven1987]

Social Democrat

prioritize economic development and jobs ahead of immigrants and environmentally friendly policies

Just when I thought every leftist is also a Green Peace nut; but then it is Sweden which the right is anti-military...

[Påsan]

In an ideal Sweden, SD would have the same position as the Danish Folkeparti or the Norwegian Fremskritspartiet.

The current situation however is downright antidemocratic.

[Ngugi]

Technically the situation is simply that Sweden's democratic system, built for pluralistic party representation in the parliment, has not been constructed for the kind of block politic that currently is in practice; a much greater degree of co-operation and trade offs between left wing and middle, or middle and right wing parties, or across the parliment, has historically always enabled potent goverments, a dynamic temporarly inert.

The current situation however is downright antidemocratic.

Fail to see that; care to elaborate?

[Påsan]

Fail to see that; care to elaborate?

Sure, seems to me, as explained by others in this thread that the opposition to increased immigration is not reflected in the democratic process. 45% of Swedes wishes for reduced immigration, but 6 out of 7 parties is in favor of more liberal immigration or sustained at current level (at about 110 000 per year, making Sweden the most immigrant-friendly country in the world). The only party, representing 800 000 voters, to be in favor of reduced immigration have been completely ostracized by the others and been called right-wing fascist due mostly to this very issue. The major media outlets also seems to reflect the government position as opposed to the popular stance, launching a smear campaign against SD and neglecting to report or comment the immigration issue whatsoever, unless it is launching badly researched and unreasonable attacks on other countries for not following the Swedish example.

Then you have episodes where migrasjonsverket can decide on policies like giving all Syrians instant visas without going through any public debate whatsoever.

So basically to me the government representatives and the media does not seem to reflect the opinions of the people, the media is lying/neglecting to report on important social issues and major immigration-related decisions are taken with carte-blache in backrooms at migrasjonsverket. Therefore the situation is not very democratic.

[Mithridate]

So basically to me the government representatives and the media does not seem to reflect the opinions of the people, the media is lying/neglecting to report on important social issues and major immigration-related decisions are taken with carte-blache in backrooms at migrasjonsverket. Therefore the situation is not very democratic.

An old problem stemming from post WW2 as far as I can tell, we're overly careful about not targeting groups to prevent persecution - especially in media. Our laws have been made to protect and serve in this way, to prevent harassment like that of the sami and Romani.

It is good to prevent generalization and persecution by ignorant masses, sure.
But we've turned it into forced blinds, not something unique to our country even if we've made it into an artform:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Facts should not be dismissed merely because one does not like what they say, people not be branded racist or worse by the assumed usage of same absolutist faulty logic ironically used to brand them.

[Condottiere 40K]

I heard that the Swedes have a Borgian agenda to assimilate all refugees into the Swedish culture; maybe the rest of Europe should harmonize with the Swedes, I know a few that I wouldn't mind harmonizing with.

[Aanker]

That's the thing though, Sweden has a pretty low rate of assimilation...

[Derpy Hooves]

​Are there really any European countries that have a good rate of assimilation compared to the US?

[ShockBlast]

​Are there really any European countries that have a good rate of assimilation compared to the US?

Yeah, like all of them, I haven`t met a black person in Europe who styles himself Afro-European and has a different culture than the established one.

[Aanker]

​Are there really any European countries that have a good rate of assimilation compared to the US?

It's a bit ironic that the U.S., which certainly does not welcome immigrants with so-called 'open arms', is much better at assimilation and maybe even immigration in general.

[Derpy Hooves]

It's a bit ironic that the U.S., which certainly does not welcome immigrants with so-called 'open arms', is much better at assimilation and maybe even immigration in general.

Wrong. We welcome legal immigration, but we are against illegal immigration. Personally, I couldn't care less. If people want to come to this country, by all means come.
One reason we're better at immigration is because anyone can become an American. Black, white, brown, or yellow; become a citizen and everyone will call you an American.

[Aanker]

Wrong. We welcome legal immigration, but we are against illegal immigration. Personally, I couldn't care less. If people want to come to this country, by all means come.
One reason we're better at immigration is because anyone can become an American. Black, white, brown, or yellow; become a citizen and everyone will call you an American.

The process of immigrating legally to the U.S., even then, is difficult. There have however been steps to ease that for skilled/highly educated labour (to my knowledge) but I'm pretty sure it's easier to get a permanent residence in Sweden.

Then again my lack of insight might just highlight the typical stereotyping of the U.S. that occurs in the EU.

[Adar]

Are SD even social conservatives anyways? I don't recall reading they oppose same-sex unions or the likes.

Lately they have even absorbed some Christian Democratic voters who think that the Christian Democrats are too liberal. It's kind of funny to see other politicians being completely unprepared to debate abortion (which is fairly uncontroversial in Sweden). But personally I've never understood why SD are such fans of one Middle Eastern religion and not another one.

Just when I thought every leftist is also a Green Peace nut; but then it is Sweden which the right is anti-military...

The Moderates sacrificed the military in order to look less right wing. But they have generally tried to pretend to still support the military without managing to fool anyone.

In general I would say that there are two kinds of leftwingers.

Traditional leftwingers who focus on high wages and good living conditions for the workers - they generally support nuclear power, may oppose immigration and free trade.

"Modern" leftwingers who want to use state intervention to shape the world like they want it - these are the guys you are thinking about.

In Sweden the Social Democrats are increasingly dominated by type 2 while the unions are type 1. The Sweden Democrats are therefore soaking up a lot of support from the unions despite the unions officially being very much against the Sweden Democrats.

The process of immigrating legally to the U.S., even then, is difficult. There have however been steps to ease that for skilled/highly educated labour (to my knowledge) but I'm pretty sure it's easier to get a permanent residence in Sweden.

Then again my lack of insight might just highlight the typical stereotyping of the U.S. that occurs in the EU.

I think integration success and patterns vary a lot on the state level. But I just recall some statistics suggesting that Texas was more successful than California in getting Latinos to the job market. Might be wrong and appropriate for an Academy thread.

[Thorn777]

It's a bit ironic that the U.S., which certainly does not welcome immigrants with so-called 'open arms', is much better at assimilation and maybe even immigration in general.

Recent decades they only braindrain or get people who really want to go there and have packed up enough money and dedication to have shot at something. Apart from the broad mass of latino's who we should rather compare most our immigration with. And its similar problems there as well.

There is a difference when Sweden for instance takes 200K Iraq refugees, from all walks of life, who dont want to be there, and have faced most traumatic experiences by western hands. I would like to see USA assimilate those kinds of people on those shares of their population.

[Vanoi]

There is a difference when Sweden for instance takes 200K Iraq refugees, from all walks of life, who dont want to be there, and have faced most traumatic experiences by western hands. I would like to see USA assimilate those kinds of people on those shares of their population.

Do you know how many refugees the US has taken in since 1975? Almost 1 million. Doesn't seem to have a problem assimilating them.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/s...st20years.html

Over 100,000 of those are Iraqis.


Btw, the US doesn't really "assimilate" people anymore. The US's culture is described as a salad bowl for a reason.

[Thorn777]

Do you know how many refugees the US has taken in since 1975? Almost 1 million. Doesn't seem to have a problem assimilating them.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/s...st20years.html

Over 100,000 of those are Iraqis.


Btw, the US doesn't really "assimilate" people anymore. The US's culture is described as a salad bowl for a reason.

Germany alone mid 90's took over 2 milion refugees from former Yugoslavia. As such, it did double in 5 years time, from one crisis-zone alone of what you did in 40 years all across the border, with over trice the population, and 50 something times the geographic space available.

Talk back to me when you got something to say.#

USA has become a deeply cynical and pragmatic country. Learn that.

[Treize]

It's a bit ironic that the U.S., which certainly does not welcome immigrants with so-called 'open arms', is much better at assimilation and maybe even immigration in general.

Because in order too succeed in America one needs to assimilate. No welfare system going on to subsidise segregation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uF67vCN-Vw